Justia Contracts Opinion Summaries

Hi-Tech Aggregate, LLC supplied Pavestone, LLC with aggregate used to manufacture pavers. After customers complained about efflorescence on the pavers, Pavestone determined that sodium carbonate in Hi-Tech’s aggregate caused the issue. Pavestone sued Hi-Tech for negligence, products liability, breach of contract, and breach of warranty. The district court ruled in favor of Pavestone on the breach of warranty and products liability claims.The Eighth Judicial District Court of Clark County conducted a bench trial and found that Hi-Tech breached the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose and was liable under products liability. Hi-Tech appealed the decision, arguing that it did not know of Pavestone’s specific need for sodium-free aggregate and that the economic loss doctrine barred Pavestone’s tort claims.The Supreme Court of Nevada reviewed the case. It held that Hi-Tech’s sale of aggregate carried an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose because Hi-Tech had reason to know Pavestone’s intended use. The court adopted the reasoning of UCC § 2-315, which does not require proof of a seller’s actual knowledge if the seller had reason to know the product’s intended purpose. The court also held that Pavestone was excused from testing the aggregate for sodium carbonate because the defect was latent and not detectable through a simple examination.However, the court reversed the district court’s ruling on the products liability claim, holding that the economic loss doctrine precluded Pavestone’s noncontractual claims. The doctrine applies when the damage is to the product itself and not to other property. Pavestone did not provide sufficient evidence of damage to property other than the pavers. Thus, the Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed the district court’s judgment on the warranty claim but reversed its judgment on the products liability claims. View "Hi-Tech Aggregate, LLC v. Pavestone, LLC" on Justia Law

Zurich American Insurance Company issued a builder’s risk insurance policy for the construction of an academic building for City Colleges of Chicago. Infrastructure Engineering, Inc. (IEI), a subcontractor, designed a rainwater collection system for the project. During construction, a rainstorm caused significant flooding and damage to the building. Zurich paid the claim to CMO, the general contractor, and then sued IEI for breach of contract, alleging that IEI’s design caused the damage.The Cook County circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of IEI, agreeing with IEI’s argument that Zurich was not entitled to subrogation because the payment was made to CMO, not City Colleges, and CMO repaired the damage. Zurich appealed, and the appellate court reversed the circuit court’s decision, holding that Zurich was entitled to subrogation under the policy’s provisions, which allowed Zurich to step into City Colleges’ shoes.The Supreme Court of Illinois reviewed the case and affirmed the appellate court’s judgment. The court held that City Colleges, as the owner of the damaged property, had an insurable interest and sustained a loss when the building was damaged. The court found that Zurich, having paid for the repairs through CMO, was entitled to subrogation rights under the clear terms of the builder’s risk policy. The court rejected IEI’s argument that City Colleges did not sustain a loss or receive payment, emphasizing that CMO acted as City Colleges’ agent in handling the claim and repairs. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Infrastructure Engineering, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, two law firms, provided legal services to defendants regarding the estate of Daniel P. O’Brien Sr. and Mary D. O’Brien. The attorney-client agreement stipulated a contingency fee structure, but defendants terminated the agreement without cause after 19 months. Plaintiffs sought compensation for their services based on quantum meruit, claiming their efforts significantly contributed to a favorable settlement for defendants.The Cook County Circuit Court found that plaintiffs had proven the elements of a quantum meruit claim, including the benefit conferred upon defendants. The court determined the reasonable value of plaintiffs’ services using the contingency fee structure from the attorney-client agreement, awarding plaintiffs $1,692,390.60 after deducting fees paid to subsequent attorneys.The Appellate Court affirmed the entitlement to quantum meruit recovery but reversed the amount awarded, ruling that the attorney-client agreement was void due to a violation of Rule 1.5(e) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, which requires a written fee-splitting agreement and client consent. The appellate court remanded the case for a new determination of the reasonable value of services.The Illinois Supreme Court reviewed the case and agreed that plaintiffs were entitled to quantum meruit recovery. However, it found that the appellate court erred in reversing the circuit court’s judgment on the reasonable value of services. The Supreme Court held that the attorney-client agreement was not void ab initio and that the circuit court did not commit reversible error in using the contingency fee structure as evidence of value. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment, awarding plaintiffs $1,692,390.60. View "Andrew W. Levenfeld & Associates, Ltd. v. O'Brien" on Justia Law

Occidental Petroleum Corporation acquired Anadarko Petroleum Corporation in 2019, resulting in a trust holding a significant amount of Occidental stock. Wells Fargo, acting as trustee, agreed via email to sell the stock between January 6 and January 10, 2020. However, Wells Fargo failed to execute the sale until March 2020, by which time the stock's value had significantly decreased, causing a loss of over $30 million. Occidental sued Wells Fargo for breach of contract based on the email chain and the Trust Agreement.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of Occidental, finding that Wells Fargo breached the Trust Agreement by failing to sell the stock as planned. The court also dismissed Wells Fargo’s counterclaim and affirmative defenses and awarded damages and attorney’s fees to Occidental.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and held that the 2019 email chain did not constitute a contract due to lack of consideration. However, Wells Fargo was judicially estopped from arguing that the Trust Agreement was not a contract, as it had previously asserted that the relationship was contractual to dismiss Occidental’s fiduciary-duty claim. The court affirmed that Wells Fargo breached the Trust Agreement by failing to prudently manage the Trust’s assets.The Fifth Circuit also upheld the district court’s calculation of damages, rejecting Wells Fargo’s argument that reinvestment should have been considered. The court found that reinvestment was speculative and unsupported by the record. Additionally, the court affirmed the dismissal of Wells Fargo’s counterclaim and affirmative defenses, as Wells Fargo failed to show a genuine dispute of material fact. Finally, the court upheld the award of attorney’s fees, finding no basis for segregating fees based on Wells Fargo’s different capacities. The district court’s judgment was affirmed. View "Occidental Petroleum v. Wells Fargo" on Justia Law

In this case, a primary insurer, Westport Insurance Corporation, and an excess insurer, Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company, disputed liability for a judgment against their mutual insured, Insurance Alliance (IA). IA was sued by Lake Texoma Highport LLC for failing to procure requested insurance coverage, resulting in significant property damage. IA had a primary insurance policy with Westport and an excess policy with Penn National. Westport controlled the defense and rejected multiple settlement offers from Highport. A jury found IA liable, resulting in a $13.7 million judgment.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas determined that Penn National breached its duties to defend and indemnify IA. However, a jury found that Westport violated its Stowers duty by not accepting reasonable settlement offers. The district court ruled that Penn National's breaches occurred after Westport's Stowers violation and thus did not impact the case outcome.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed that Penn National breached its duties but held that Westport's Stowers duty was triggered by Highport's settlement offers, which Westport unreasonably rejected. The court found that the district court's jury instructions were correct and that Penn National had standing to assert a Stowers claim. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in its jury instructions or in setting aside the jury's verdict regarding the May 2009 demand.Ultimately, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that Westport was liable for the excess judgment due to its Stowers violation, and Penn National was entitled to reimbursement for the amount it paid on IA's behalf. View "Westport Insurance Corporation v. Pennsylvania National Mutual Casualty Insurance Company" on Justia Law

In 2020, Milos Product Tanker Corporation transported approximately 40,000 tons of jet fuel belonging to Valero Marketing and Supply Company. Milos had a maritime transportation contract (Charter Party) with GP Global PTE Ltd., which arranged the voyage. Valero purchased the fuel from Koch Refining International PTE Ltd. on "cost and freight" terms, meaning Koch paid for the transportation. Upon delivery, Valero refused to pay Milos, arguing it had already paid Koch. GP Global, facing financial difficulties, also did not pay Milos, leading Milos to sue Valero for breach of contract.The United States District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment in favor of Milos, concluding that Valero breached an express or implied contract to pay Milos for the transportation. The court reasoned that Valero's conduct showed its consent to be bound by the Charter Party between Milos and GP Global. The court also found that Valero was alternatively liable under an implied promise to pay, based on its acceptance of the fuel.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's decision. The appellate court held that under maritime law, the shipper (GP Global) is primarily liable for freight charges, even if a bill of lading suggests otherwise. The court found no express contract between Milos and Valero that would rebut this presumption. The Charter Party specifically stated that GP Global would pay the freight. The court also determined that Valero's conduct did not imply an agreement to be bound by the bills of lading or to pay freight. Additionally, the court found no basis for an implied obligation for Valero to pay under the principles established in States Marine International, Inc. v. Seattle-First National Bank. The court concluded that Valero was not unjustly enriched, as it had paid Koch for the freight charges. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "MILOS PRODUCT TANKER CORPORATION V. VALERO MARKETING AND SUPPLY COMPANY" on Justia Law

A group of residents in the Whitehorse Estates Minor Subdivision filed a complaint against their neighbors, Joseph and Amanda Kleinhans, alleging that the Kleinhans violated the subdivision’s restrictive covenants by converting their garage into an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and renting it out as an Airbnb. The covenants in question required properties to be used only for single-family dwellings and prohibited the operation of commercial businesses.The District Court of the Twenty-Second Judicial District, Carbon County, granted summary judgment in favor of the Kleinhans. The court interpreted the single-family dwelling covenant as a structural restriction, not a use restriction, meaning it only limited the type and number of buildings but did not restrict the use of the property to single families. The court also found the commercial business covenant to be ambiguous and concluded it did not prohibit short-term rentals like Airbnb. Consequently, the court awarded the Kleinhans their Bill of Costs amounting to $4,594.35.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and reversed the District Court’s decision. The Supreme Court held that the term "commercial business" was not ambiguous and should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, which includes activities conducted for profit. Therefore, the Kleinhans' operation of an Airbnb constituted a commercial business, violating the subdivision’s covenants. The Supreme Court also reversed the award of the Bill of Costs to the Kleinhans and remanded the case to the District Court to enter summary judgment in favor of the neighbors. View "Myers v. Kleinhans" on Justia Law

In 2006, Lisa Wilson's late husband, Mason, purchased a home in Coventry, Rhode Island, financing it with a $150,000 mortgage. Both Mason and Lisa signed the mortgage agreement, but only Mason signed the promissory note. The mortgage agreement included covenants requiring the "Borrowers" to defend the title, pay property taxes, and discharge any superior liens. In 2007, Deutsche Bank acquired the mortgage and note. Mason defaulted on the mortgage payments, and the Wilsons failed to pay property taxes, leading to a tax sale in 2014. Birdsong Associates bought the property and later obtained a court decree extinguishing Deutsche Bank's mortgage lien. Birdsong then sold the property to Coventry IV-14, RIGP, which eventually sold it to Dunkin Engineering Solutions, LLC, a company formed by Mason's parents. After Mason's parents' deaths, Lisa became the sole owner of Dunkin.Deutsche Bank sued Lisa, Mason, and Dunkin in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, alleging breach of the mortgage covenants and seeking equitable relief. The district court granted summary judgment to Lisa and Dunkin, finding that the mortgage agreement had been extinguished by the 2016 court decree and that Deutsche Bank had no remaining contractual rights. The court also rejected Deutsche Bank's equitable claims, concluding that there was no evidence of a scheme to benefit Lisa and Mason and that no benefit had accrued to Dunkin or Lisa from Deutsche Bank's payments.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the mortgage agreement did not unambiguously bind Lisa to the covenants, and thus, Deutsche Bank could not enforce those covenants against her. The court also found that Deutsche Bank failed to establish a fiduciary or confidential relationship necessary for its equitable claims and that Deutsche Bank's payments did not unjustly enrich Dunkin or Lisa. View "Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Wilson" on Justia Law

Dignity Health, operating as French Hospital Medical Center, filed a complaint against orthopedic surgeon Troy I. Mounts, M.D., and his corporation to recover an advance paid under their Physician Recruitment Agreement. Mounts filed a cross-complaint alleging retaliation for his complaints about patient care quality, interference with his economic opportunities, and unlawful business practices. Dignity responded with an anti-SLAPP motion to strike the cross-complaint, which the trial court initially denied. The appellate court reversed this decision and remanded the case for further consideration.Upon remand, the trial court concluded that Mounts had not demonstrated a probability of prevailing on his claims. The court found that Dignity's actions were protected by the litigation privilege, the common interest privilege, and were barred by the statute of limitations. Consequently, the court granted Dignity's motion to strike the cross-complaint and ordered Mounts to pay Dignity's attorney fees and costs.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that all of Mounts' claims were based on conduct protected by the litigation privilege (Civil Code § 47, subd. (b)) and the common interest privilege (Civil Code § 47, subd. (c)). The court also found that Dignity's actions were immune under federal law (42 U.S.C. § 11137) and that some claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The appellate court upheld the trial court's orders granting the motion to strike and awarding attorney fees to Dignity. View "Dignity Health v. Mounts" on Justia Law

The plaintiff, a manufacturer of resinous flooring systems, sued a former employee, the defendant, for breaching a noncompete agreement, violating the Connecticut Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA), and breaching a common-law duty of confidentiality. The defendant, who had signed a noncompete agreement as a condition of continued employment, later established his own floor coating business and used the plaintiff’s proprietary information to develop competing products. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant also assisted competitors in developing their products.In a separate but related case, the trial court found the noncompete agreement unenforceable due to lack of consideration and ruled that the common-law duty of confidentiality claim was preempted by CUTSA. The court also determined that a payment made to the defendant after his resignation was severance pay, not compensation for reaffirming the noncompete agreement. Based on these findings, the trial court in the present case granted summary judgment for the defendant, applying collateral estoppel to preclude further consideration of the issues.The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the trial court had incorrectly determined the noncompete agreement was unenforceable for lack of consideration. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment on the breach of the noncompete agreement claim and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the agreement was supported by adequate consideration. The court upheld the trial court’s findings that the severance payment was not consideration for reaffirming the noncompete agreement and that the common-law duty of confidentiality claim was preempted by CUTSA. These rulings were binding in the present case. The judgment was reversed in part and affirmed in part, with further proceedings required to determine the enforceability and potential breach of the noncompete agreement. View "Dur-A-Flex, Inc. v. Dy" on Justia Law